Re: Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Thank you Any comparison with other 200mm macro lenses? Alek Użytkownik Pĺl Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >Alek wrote: > >> Do you know who uses FA200/4 ED macro?Or you know any tests of the lens or other >macro lenses? > > >It is great. As good as they come. > >Pĺl > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Sylwester Pietrzyk a écrit: on 27.01.03 17:39, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose I should also point out that Nikon fires a pre flash prior to the actual flash exposure so it can meter the reflected light of the flash from the subject. The metering is also tied to the active AF sensor. In my experience with slide film, it deals very well with an off center subject that is against a very dark background. As I said before Nikon's flash metering is very good, except for one drawback - pre-flash metering doesn't work when using bounce and wireless flash - it switches to simple TTL in these situations. On Pentax P-TTL, pre-flash metering works allways when using bounce or wireless flash ! Mchel
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Alan Chan a écrit: I once stripped down a F50/1.4 (many years ago) which had 4 electrical straps (or 3?) underneath the focus ring. Looks like for distance data. regards, Alan Chan But you compare F100 with MZ5 which uses distant information but has not advanced flash metering. You should compare F100 with MZS. And it must be truth with distant information since when Pentax introduced P-TTL they have not changed anything in lenses!!It proves that it should be similar to Nikon metering.So one can use FA lenses having P-TTL unlike Nikon users who have to buy "D" lens and Minolta ones who have to buy "G" lens. Yes, you can use P-TTL (and off-flash matrix metering) with ALL Pentax K-mount lenses: - all Ka mount (Ka/Kaf/Kaf2/Ka2) without upgrade - KR mount, full Ka compatible (Ricoh auto-mount) - original K mount with upgrade: Original "hard" upgrade by Marx Roberts: http://www.robertstech.com/matrix.htm "Soft" upgrade on my web: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/ http://perso.wanadoo.fr/krg/Photo/multizone.htm Michel
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
No kidding. You don't even know how the camera works, or what it can do. There's a dedicated switch on the back to turn the dummy, auto AF select, to user selects the AF sensor. If you don't like the AF assist light, turn it off: Custom Function 18 (I assume you don't have the owner's manual.If you select the center, cross pattern AF sensor, the low light AF performance is much better (not as good as the F100, but better than my ZX-5). Just why did you buy that thing anyway? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As I said, I am not a good representative of Nikon user. I am a very casual user of Nikon. I bought the F80 at a bargain price when my friend moved up to F100. I did not even want it but bought it anyway because I thought that the price was right. The F80 did not even come with any lens and I had no intention to buy a Nikkor lens to go with the body, so I had to talk my friend into parting any one lens he had, and he sold me a 50/1.4 :-). I am not sure if I like or dislike the F80 but I can tell I like my PZ-1p much better, partly because I am so used to it. Also, I rarely use multipoint AF (Pz-1p has only one sensor anyway) as I feel more comfortable in choosing the focus point myself rather than having the camera choose (i.e., I use focus lock). Sometimes, in the heat of quick grab shot, you only notice later that the focus was on unintended point or the whole picture was blurred. I never liked it. To me, it's even feel faster. Also, Pz-1p's single point AF works extremely well in a very low light situations when no other camera focuses. F80 is no match in this regard. As soon as the scene get dark, it emits AF assist light. Annoying and time consuming. At present, there is no Pentax counterpart in the F80 price range. If I would buy any Nikon equip, F100 would be my choice. But to me, other than Pentax equip, everything else looks the same :-). And for my style of shooting, I never felt inadequate using either the Pz-1p nor MZ-3. Your mileage might differ.
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
It is distance information. This has always been known. What bodies get it and use it is a matter of debate and mythology. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I once stripped down a F50/1.4 (many years ago) which had 4 electrical straps (or 3?) underneath the focus ring. Looks like for distance data.
RE: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
I'll have to watch out for that. I didn't know about it at all. Thanks. Len --- > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 9:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine > > > Switch in the flash head. This can lead to problems when a off camera > sync cord is used and the whole flash is tilted and not just > the head. > The flash has to be put into straight TTL mode. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >How does the system know when the flash is tilted up for bouncing? > > > >Len > > > > > > >
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
On 1/28/03 5:02 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No kidding. You don't even know how the camera works, or what it can do. > There's a dedicated switch on the back to turn the dummy, auto AF > select, to user selects the AF sensor. If you don't like the AF assist > light, turn it off: Custom Function 18 (I assume you don't have the > owner's manual.If you select the center, cross pattern AF sensor, the > low light AF performance is much better (not as good as the F100, but > better than my ZX-5). > Just why did you buy that thing anyway? > > BR > >> much better, partly because I am so used to it. Also, I rarely use >> multipoint AF (Pz-1p has only one sensor anyway) as I feel more comfortable >> in choosing the focus point myself rather than having the camera choose >> (i.e., I use focus lock). And perhaps you should have read here more carefully. I was really saying that I rarely use the multipoint AF system "of F80", which means I only use the single sensor I select. But thank you for your kind advice anyway ;-). Ken
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
On 1/28/03 5:02 PM, "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No kidding. You don't even know how the camera works, or what it can do. > There's a dedicated switch on the back to turn the dummy, auto AF > select, to user selects the AF sensor. If you don't like the AF assist > light, turn it off: Custom Function 18 (I assume you don't have the > owner's manual.If you select the center, cross pattern AF sensor, the > low light AF performance is much better (not as good as the F100, but > better than my ZX-5). > Just why did you buy that thing anyway? Bruce, don't jump on the conclusion. I am the gadget freak and the first thing I do is to examine the equipment to the point I almost disassemble it :-). I know how to user select the AF point. Most camera, if not all, with multi-point AF system can give user the option to select the point. I was only trying to illustrate that F80 AF system is of no use to me. Re AF assist, again, I know how to turn it off. In fact, I never like the white AF assist beam, except infrared one. Again, I was trying to illustrate the low light AF performance of the single sensor Pz-1p system. But it was a nice try, Bruce. Take it easy, Ken
Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
I once stripped down a F50/1.4 (many years ago) which had 4 electrical straps (or 3?) underneath the focus ring. Looks like for distance data. regards, Alan Chan But you compare F100 with MZ5 which uses distant information but has not advanced flash metering. You should compare F100 with MZS. And it must be truth with distant information since when Pentax introduced P-TTL they have not changed anything in lenses!!It proves that it should be similar to Nikon metering.So one can use FA lenses having P-TTL unlike Nikon users who have to buy "D" lens and Minolta ones who have to buy "G" lens. _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Alek wrote: > Do you know who uses FA200/4 ED macro?Or you know any tests of the lens or other >macro lenses? It is great. As good as they come. Pål
Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
You are right, Bruce And it is more important to take more pictures and think during shooting than only reading test and specs. Cheers, Alek PS How about you Nikkors?Do you prefer them over Pentax or vice versa?Alek Użytkownik Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >If someone would like to lend me a MZ-S for 6 months I would be glad to >compare it to a F100. My comments pertained to specific model cameras, >because that it what I have experience with. Now, I happen to have D and >non D lenses. Monitor preflash and multisegment TTL metering is still >done with non D lenses. I, and a number of people, have a hard time >telling if D lenses make any real difference. >People get so absorbed with manufacturer spec/feature/number sheets that >they don't realize that how well implemented something is is more >important than techno-market-speak. "My P-TTL beats your E-TTL, because >its a higher letter in the alphabet!" >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Hi, >>But you compare F100 with MZ5 which uses distant information but has not advanced >flash metering. You should compare F100 with MZS. And it must be truth with distant >information since when Pentax introduced P-TTL they have not changed anything in >lenses!!It proves that it should be similar to Nikon metering.So one can use FA >lenses having P-TTL unlike Nikon users who have to buy "D" lens and Minolta ones who >have to buy "G" lens. >>Alek >> >> > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
If someone would like to lend me a MZ-S for 6 months I would be glad to compare it to a F100. My comments pertained to specific model cameras, because that it what I have experience with. Now, I happen to have D and non D lenses. Monitor preflash and multisegment TTL metering is still done with non D lenses. I, and a number of people, have a hard time telling if D lenses make any real difference. People get so absorbed with manufacturer spec/feature/number sheets that they don't realize that how well implemented something is is more important than techno-market-speak. "My P-TTL beats your E-TTL, because its a higher letter in the alphabet!" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, But you compare F100 with MZ5 which uses distant information but has not advanced flash metering. You should compare F100 with MZS. And it must be truth with distant information since when Pentax introduced P-TTL they have not changed anything in lenses!!It proves that it should be similar to Nikon metering.So one can use FA lenses having P-TTL unlike Nikon users who have to buy "D" lens and Minolta ones who have to buy "G" lens. Alek
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
I'm sorry, but you are going to have to get a weasel answer: it all depends. In only one case (28-105) the Nikon is better optically, and vastly better mechanically than the Pentax I had (FA 28-105/4-5.6 power zoom). Otherwise, I haven't noticed the Nikkors being "sharper", when I can compare comparable lenses. In practice, however, I have been able to get AF lenses in the focal length/f stop version I want with Nikon. For much of the shooting I do AF is important, I get more shots in focus with Nikon and in focus pictures are way sharper than out of focus ones. I haven't noticed any real difference in flare. If there's any difference it is insignificant compared to what you get with 3rd party lenses. Other practical advantages has to do with things like much greater, and often cheaper selection of used, original maker (I've pretty much sworn off 3rd party lenses), AF Nikkor lenses. (Remember, I live in the US and not Norway.) BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have Nikon system, too how you assess Pentax lenses (in general) in comparison with Nikon. Probbaly one cannot say in general. Just your impressions. Some people believe Nikkors are better some not... Alek
Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Hi, Thank you very much for the answer. My brother plans to buy Nikon 80 and you recommend it?What about build quality/AF, fast?metering? So you believe that Nikkors are sharper? And you are right. Some people like Pentax glass very,very much. The problem is as you said with bodies. there is not F80 equivalent and it should be - MZ1? Do you know who uses FA200/4 ED macro?Or you know any tests of the lens or other macro lenses? Please answer Alek Użytkownik KT Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >On 1/28/03 9:38 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If you have Nikon system, too how you assess Pentax lenses (in general) in >> comparison with Nikon. >> Probbaly one cannot say in general. Just your impressions. >> Some people believe Nikkors are better some not... > >Hi Alek, > >I have an F80 and a 50/1.4D which I bought from a friend of mine. I borrow >other Nikkor lenses from time to time from the same friend, but mostly for >the experimentation (mostly out of curiosity for the purpose of the >comparison between Pentax and Nikon). I also have a Pronea 600i with >60/2.8D Micro (Oh, don't laugh. I use this for certain scientific macro >cataloguing work because of the 100% viewfinder and the archiving >convenience of APS). Therefore, my experience with Nikkor lenses is >extremely limited and I am not qualified to respond to your question. > >Having said that, I belong to a group of people in Japan (electronically) >who are the dedicated Pentax enthusiasts from whom I learn a lot. I just >pass their observations as this particular subject crops up every once in a >while. So, I have to qualify this as my hearsay, although fairly reliable >info. > >1. These die-hard Pentax enthusiasts insist that Pentax lenses and Nikkor >lenses are just different, and totally different. It is not the matter of >which is better, but it's up to the personal taste. > >2. Nikkor lenses traditionally pursued the resolution. Images are very >crisp. However, some people never liked that crispness, thus famous saying >"never use Nikon for woman's portraiture unless you borrow her stockings >:-). > >3. The virtue of the Pentax glasses is its more natural rendition of the >image. I would not say softer but it is certainly different. They are >deliberately designed so. It's more like Leica/Zeiss rendition. I am not >an expert in describing this, but I can now tell the difference between the >Pentax rendition and Nikon one (not all the time :-). If you examine the >images taken with some of the Limited series lenses, the differences are >more profound. > >4. For this reason, the real Pentax enthusiasts rarely go to Nikon although >many of them own Nikon (and other brands) equipment for one reason or >another. A lot of them own Yashica/Contax mount equipment for the same >reason. They all realize some shortcomings of Pentax bodies such as >somewhat slower fps etc, but they do not seem to care much about them. They >are usually attracted by the Pentax glasses, not the body. > >5. They can go on and on why they like the Pentax glasses but I do not >believe they are not biased. They do not talk bad of Nikon system. They >just say that Nikon and Pentax glasses are simply different. Some of them >do say that they do not quite understand why Pentax users would switch to >Nikon if they really appreciate Pentax glasses. > >The rest, I leave it to the good hands of experts here :-). > >Cheers, > >Ken > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
On 1/28/03 9:38 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have Nikon system, too how you assess Pentax lenses (in general) in > comparison with Nikon. > Probbaly one cannot say in general. Just your impressions. > Some people believe Nikkors are better some not... Hi Alek, I have an F80 and a 50/1.4D which I bought from a friend of mine. I borrow other Nikkor lenses from time to time from the same friend, but mostly for the experimentation (mostly out of curiosity for the purpose of the comparison between Pentax and Nikon). I also have a Pronea 600i with 60/2.8D Micro (Oh, don't laugh. I use this for certain scientific macro cataloguing work because of the 100% viewfinder and the archiving convenience of APS). Therefore, my experience with Nikkor lenses is extremely limited and I am not qualified to respond to your question. Having said that, I belong to a group of people in Japan (electronically) who are the dedicated Pentax enthusiasts from whom I learn a lot. I just pass their observations as this particular subject crops up every once in a while. So, I have to qualify this as my hearsay, although fairly reliable info. 1. These die-hard Pentax enthusiasts insist that Pentax lenses and Nikkor lenses are just different, and totally different. It is not the matter of which is better, but it's up to the personal taste. 2. Nikkor lenses traditionally pursued the resolution. Images are very crisp. However, some people never liked that crispness, thus famous saying "never use Nikon for woman's portraiture unless you borrow her stockings :-). 3. The virtue of the Pentax glasses is its more natural rendition of the image. I would not say softer but it is certainly different. They are deliberately designed so. It's more like Leica/Zeiss rendition. I am not an expert in describing this, but I can now tell the difference between the Pentax rendition and Nikon one (not all the time :-). If you examine the images taken with some of the Limited series lenses, the differences are more profound. 4. For this reason, the real Pentax enthusiasts rarely go to Nikon although many of them own Nikon (and other brands) equipment for one reason or another. A lot of them own Yashica/Contax mount equipment for the same reason. They all realize some shortcomings of Pentax bodies such as somewhat slower fps etc, but they do not seem to care much about them. They are usually attracted by the Pentax glasses, not the body. 5. They can go on and on why they like the Pentax glasses but I do not believe they are not biased. They do not talk bad of Nikon system. They just say that Nikon and Pentax glasses are simply different. Some of them do say that they do not quite understand why Pentax users would switch to Nikon if they really appreciate Pentax glasses. The rest, I leave it to the good hands of experts here :-). Cheers, Ken
Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
If you have Nikon system, too how you assess Pentax lenses (in general) in comparison with Nikon. Probbaly one cannot say in general. Just your impressions. Some people believe Nikkors are better some not... Alek Użytkownik Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >I suppose I should also point out that Nikon fires a pre flash prior to >the actual flash exposure so it can meter the reflected light of the >flash from the subject. The metering is also tied to the active AF >sensor. In my experience with slide film, it deals very well with an off >center subject that is against a very dark background. > >BR > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Hi, But you compare F100 with MZ5 which uses distant information but has not advanced flash metering. You should compare F100 with MZS. And it must be truth with distant information since when Pentax introduced P-TTL they have not changed anything in lenses!!It proves that it should be similar to Nikon metering.So one can use FA lenses having P-TTL unlike Nikon users who have to buy "D" lens and Minolta ones who have to buy "G" lens. Alek Użytkownik Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >The 3D primarily has to do with the distance from the camera to the >subject for flash metering. While distance information has been >available from Pentax lenses, it wasn't used for exposure calculation >until some of the newer cameras came out. I don't think that there is >any difference in the percentage of properly exposed, ambient light >shots of either system, but the Nikon flash is better. (Based on years >with a ZX-5 and F100) > >BR > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Is it the same matrix metering system as on the MZ-5n? At least the >>symbol is the same and I'm very satisfied with the MZ-5n's metering >>performance. BTW - can anybody tell me what is so special about Nikon's >>"3D" matrix metering? Is there really a notable difference to Pentax's >>system? >> >>Cheers, Heiko >> >> >> > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
On the topic of super wide angle lenses Alan Chan wrote: Could this be a problem with Pentax, instead of all SLR wide angles? Generally all super wide angle lenses have considerable fall-off of resolution and of contrast from image centre to border (and yes, Raimo, they do have light fall off, too). And of course some lenses are better than others. I remember a UK magazine did some test and they said while the Pentax 15/3.5 was the most flare resistance (along with T*), Zeiss & Nikkor 15mm had better sharpest from centre to corners. "Sharpness from centre to corner" is subjective. I have seen other test (Foto Magazin) telling that the Pentax 15/3.5 was as good or better than the Zeiss, Leica and Nikon equivalents - which I tend to believe, as the designs of these lenses are very, very similar. Maybe the new Leica 15/f2.8 is better, though. The Pentax 15mm, they said, was okay from f8 up, but still not particular good against Zeiss & Nikkor. Consider the Nikkor had flare problem, Zeiss was the clear winner of the test. My own experience with the Pentax 15/f3.5 is that wide open it is OK in the centre and not so sharp at the border. At f8 it is very sharp in the centre and sharp enough at the border but still a long way from a normal lens or from a lens like the K28/f3.5. Arnold
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
I got things a bit jumbled. The AF sensor data is used to determine the distance of the subject. According to Nikon documentation, "The camera's CPU uses the reflected light [monitor preflash] to determine in which of the TTL Multi Sensor's five segments the subject is located, in accordance with the selected aperture and distance." The statement indicates that the algorithm doesn't assume the location of the subject based on which AF sensor was used to determine distance. BR BTW, all this fancy stuff is only of much use for simple fill flash. For a decent look, with flash as the main light source, things like diffusers, bounces and brackets are needed and then metering goes to TTL. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Bruce, the AF sensor cannot be coupled to the 5 segment flash sensor (e.g. for the F100). The AF sensors are always on the borders which are between the segments. To be coupled to the AF sensors, the 5 AF sensors must be distributed like the Contax N1 sensors. The MZ-S has a preflash measurement with the normal 6 segment metering which is also coupled to the AF sensor (coupling can be switch off). It calculated the amount of over oder underexposer for this special situation . During the flash one intergal sensor which is measures from the film plain?? is switching the flash off in dependence of the preflash. regards Rüdiger
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
>on 27.01.03 17:39, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I suppose I should also point out that Nikon fires a pre flash prior to >> the actual flash exposure so it can meter the reflected light of the >> flash from the subject. The metering is also tied to the active AF >> sensor. In my experience with slide film, it deals very well with an off >> center subject that is against a very dark background. >> Hi Bruce, the AF sensor cannot be coupled to the 5 segment flash sensor (e.g. for the F100). The AF sensors are always on the borders which are between the segments. To be coupled to the AF sensors, the 5 AF sensors must be distributed like the Contax N1 sensors. The MZ-S has a preflash measurement with the normal 6 segment metering which is also coupled to the AF sensor (coupling can be switch off). It calculated the amount of over oder underexposer for this special situation . During the flash one intergal sensor which is measures from the film plain?? is switching the flash off in dependence of the preflash. regards Rüdiger
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Heiko wrote: > Is it the same matrix metering system as on the MZ-5n? No. I believe it's significantly altered or at least differently calibrated. It is closer to whats used in the 645N/NII. It is far more intelligent than what used on earlier Pentaxes (like the Z-1p), which basically just compensate for backlit subjects. Pål
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
on 27.01.03 17:39, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I suppose I should also point out that Nikon fires a pre flash prior to > the actual flash exposure so it can meter the reflected light of the > flash from the subject. The metering is also tied to the active AF > sensor. In my experience with slide film, it deals very well with an off > center subject that is against a very dark background. > As I said before Nikon's flash metering is very good, except for one drawback - pre-flash metering doesn't work when using bounce and wireless flash - it switches to simple TTL in these situations. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
on 27.01.03 17:39, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I suppose I should also point out that Nikon fires a pre flash prior to > the actual flash exposure so it can meter the reflected light of the > flash from the subject. The metering is also tied to the active AF > sensor. In my experience with slide film, it deals very well with an off > center subject that is against a very dark background. > I am not sure if flash metering is tied to active AF point. In fact "3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill-Flash" is based on off-the curtain 5-segment metering (http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/FeatureGuide/features2.html#3D_Multi) and thus cannot be linked to active AF point. Available light exposure metering is indeed tied to active AF point, just like in MZ-S and all Canon and Minolta SLRs, and this proves to work very well in multi AF points cameras. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
on 27.01.03 15:12, Bruce Rubenstein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The 3D primarily has to do with the distance from the camera to the > subject for flash metering. While distance information has been > available from Pentax lenses, it wasn't used for exposure calculation > until some of the newer cameras came out. I don't think that there is > any difference in the percentage of properly exposed, ambient light > shots of either system, but the Nikon flash is better. (Based on years > with a ZX-5 and F100) > Flash 3D matrix control in Nikon is indeed very good, especially compared to "plain" TTL system as it is in ZX-5. It is different than Canon's E-TTL or Pentax P-TTL (they meter flash before mirror is up), because it meters pre-flash after rising mirror - light is reflected from gray-painted curtain and reaches 5-segment flash TTL sensor. That's why it is impossible to distinguish metering- and main flash in this system (something that is clearly seen in Pentax and Canon case). It would be interesting to compare Nikon's flash accuracy to Pentax new P-TTL system with 6-segment metering though... -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
The 3D primarily has to do with the distance from the camera to the subject for flash metering. While distance information has been available from Pentax lenses, it wasn't used for exposure calculation until some of the newer cameras came out. I don't think that there is any difference in the percentage of properly exposed, ambient light shots of either system, but the Nikon flash is better. (Based on years with a ZX-5 and F100) BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it the same matrix metering system as on the MZ-5n? At least the symbol is the same and I'm very satisfied with the MZ-5n's metering performance. BTW - can anybody tell me what is so special about Nikon's "3D" matrix metering? Is there really a notable difference to Pentax's system? Cheers, Heiko
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 13:03:12 +0200, Boris Liberman wrote: > Given the number of variables involved, it literally means zilch - > something like: There is a company called Pentax that happens to > produce some zooms, one of which apparently in my hands used in such > an such manner gives such and such results. That's the core fallacy in most reviews of physical products. Rarely are statistical effects taken into account by the testing procedure. Sample-to-sample variation is not "weeded out" due to the extremely small number of samples tested together. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Hi Pål, on 27 Jan 03 you wrote in pentax.list: >Sylwester wrote: >> - in FotoMagazin test MZ-S has quite poor matrix metering, in ColorFoto it >> just got better - better than F100 or EOS-30 (which were far better in >> former magazine tests...) >The MZ-S has one of the best matrix metering systems in business; perhaps >only surpassed by the F5. Is it the same matrix metering system as on the MZ-5n? At least the symbol is the same and I'm very satisfied with the MZ-5n's metering performance. BTW - can anybody tell me what is so special about Nikon's "3D" matrix metering? Is there really a notable difference to Pentax's system? Cheers, Heiko
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Sylwester wrote: > - in FotoMagazin test MZ-S has quite poor matrix metering, in ColorFoto it > just got better - better than F100 or EOS-30 (which were far better in > former magazine tests...) The MZ-S has one of the best matrix metering systems in business; perhaps only surpassed by the F5. Pål
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Hi!
SP> Reading tests more and more in more places, I found them to be just
SP> unreliable. For instance:
SP> - according to Folorfoto MZ-S has one of the slowest AF among current SLR
SP> bodies (just slightly faster than Dynax 404 and 505, and much slower than
SP> MZ-3 and N*** F65...), the same test in FotoMagazine, and MZ-S has one of
SP> the fastest AF (beting easily even F100, Dynax 7 and EOS3...)
SP> - in FotoMagazin test MZ-S has quite poor matrix metering, in ColorFoto it
SP> just got better - better than F100 or EOS-30 (which were far better in
SP> former magazine tests...)
SP> - standard zooms - according to ColorFoto FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 is far better
SP> than FA 28-70/4 and what's more than FA* 28-70/2.8!!!
SP> - long zooms - according to photodo, F 70-210/4-5.6 is undoubtly better
SP> (3.4) than FA* 80-200/2.8...
SP> ... and so on, and so on.
SP> I am just tired of this "mish-mash". The best way is to make tests yourself
SP> - if the lens or body proves to be better for you rather than for testmen
SP> than just get it and be happy!
It has occurred to me reading the above, that the published lens or
other equipment tests are much close to statistics than to anything
else. Statistics is good with very big number of samples. Now, if you
take ten or even twenty lenses of some kind and test them in some
manner, you get twenty different samples of statistics for that lens.
Given the number of variables involved, it literally means zilch -
something like: There is a company called Pentax that happens to
produce some zooms, one of which apparently in my hands used in such
an such manner gives such and such results. Very well, who really
cares? I mean, do you really shoot test subjects only? Even for M
Reichmann test - I doubt any of you would travel all the way to
Toronto in order to use your stuff on his (favorite) location.
See, I've bought this Soligor 70-222/3.5 C/D zoom. Some months later
I've been advised to shoot with this lens a newspaper attached to the
wall. So I've discovered that on wide end it has some kind of
distortion - the trees on the boundary of the frame are a little round
- I don't know the name of that distortion. It really means very
little, because I am yet to find a subject that would severely suffer
from such distortion. Again, this is my shooting, yours may be
different.
I see only one thing that can be useful for tests - you read about the
lens, you probably learn, you might get some conclusion if you happen
to trust the tester, or if your needs are similar to those of the
tester.
Otherwise, tests are just a good technical reading, no more. Sometimes
it may even give you a reason to chuckle ("FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 is far
better than FA* 28-70/2.8!!!"), which is definitely a good thing.
I totally agree with Sylwester here.
---
Boris Liberman
www.geocities.com/dunno57
www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
on 24.01.03 17:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > I wonder how these tests are useful for us from the magazine. Nearly all 24mm > lenses got less than 70 points out of 100. It seems that tele lenses get much > higher notes than wide ones. > Strange. SO maybe you are they are tested nearly full open. > What do you think? > And in this magazine Fa100/2.8 macro got very high mark - 86 > Well done Pentax > And in US magazine it was only 6/10.Also strange. Are there any huge optical > differences between the same lenses or just diff conditions of tests? > Alek > Reading tests more and more in more places, I found them to be just unreliable. For instance: - according to Folorfoto MZ-S has one of the slowest AF among current SLR bodies (just slightly faster than Dynax 404 and 505, and much slower than MZ-3 and N*** F65...), the same test in FotoMagazine, and MZ-S has one of the fastest AF (beting easily even F100, Dynax 7 and EOS3...) - in FotoMagazin test MZ-S has quite poor matrix metering, in ColorFoto it just got better - better than F100 or EOS-30 (which were far better in former magazine tests...) - standard zooms - according to ColorFoto FA 28-80/3.5-5.6 is far better than FA 28-70/4 and what's more than FA* 28-70/2.8!!! - long zooms - according to photodo, F 70-210/4-5.6 is undoubtly better (3.4) than FA* 80-200/2.8... ... and so on, and so on. I am just tired of this "mish-mash". The best way is to make tests yourself - if the lens or body proves to be better for you rather than for testmen than just get it and be happy! -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
most modern telephotos really are better than most extreme wide angle lenses. Below 28mm focal lenght almost all lenses for 35mm SLR cameras suffer from severe fall-off of resolution and contrast from the image centre to the image border. If you look at the MTF diagrams given e.g. in ColorFoto, you can easily check this. Also, I myself have tested the famous K15/f3.5 and FA24/f2 lenses, and I came to the same result: Good in the image centre but problematic at the borders Could this be a problem with Pentax, instead of all SLR wide angles? I remember a UK magazine did some test and they said while the Pentax 15/3.5 was the most flare resistance (along with T*), Zeiss & Nikkor 15mm had better sharpest from centre to corners. The Pentax 15mm, they said, was okay from f8 up, but still not particular good against Zeiss & Nikkor. Consider the Nikkor had flare problem, Zeiss was the clear winner of the test. regards, Alan Chan _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Hello Alek, most modern telephotos really are better than most extreme wide angle lenses. Below 28mm focal lenght almost all lenses for 35mm SLR cameras suffer from severe fall-off of resolution and contrast from the image centre to the image border. If you look at the MTF diagrams given e.g. in ColorFoto, you can easily check this. Also, I myself have tested the famous K15/f3.5 and FA24/f2 lenses, and I came to the same result: Good in the image centre but problematic at the borders Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Hi, I wonder how these tests are useful for us from the magazine. Nearly all 24mm lenses got less than 70 points out of 100. It seems that tele lenses get much higher notes than wide ones. Strange. SO maybe you are they are tested nearly full open. What do you think? And in this magazine Fa100/2.8 macro got very high mark - 86 Well done Pentax And in US magazine it was only 6/10.Also strange. Are there any huge optical differences between the same lenses or just diff conditions of tests? Alek Użytkownik Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: In the February edition of German ColorFoto (CF) magazine the SMC Pentax-FA 1:1.8 31mm Limited and the SMC Pentax-FA 1:2 35mm AL are tested along with 35mm/f1.4 lenses from Canon, Leica R, Minolta and Zeiss, 35mm/f2 lenses from Canon, Leica R, Minolta and Nikon, and a Zeiss 35mm/f2.8. For the last two years, the CF lens tests have shown a lot of consitency. Unfortunately CF usually tests lenses wide open and two stops down, so it is hard to compare the MTF results of lenses of different maximum aperture. However, this much can be said: Of the lenses with f=1.8 or 2 maximum aperture, Minolta and the two Pentaxes offer the best image quality with 20 points (out of 30) for sharpness/resolution and 28 points (out of 30) for contrast. Canon is close (19 and 28 points) while Leica (18 and 27) and Nikkor (17 and 27) are defeated. Looking at the MTF curves, the Minolta 35/f2 offers the best performance wide open. However, at f=4 the MTF of the the Pentax 31/f1.8 is by far the best with unusually small fall-off from centre to corner. Light fall-off (vignetting) is relatively well controlled in all lenses (7 points out of 10) except for Leica (5/10). The Leica (6/10), Canon (6/10) and Minolta (7/10) 35/f2s offer slightly less distortion than Pentax (5/10 each) and Nikon (5/10). The Minolta offers excellent centration (? Zentrierung in German) with 20 points out of 20, while Leica (18), Nikon (17), Pentax 31/f1.8 (17), Pentax 35/f2 (16), and Canon (15) offer good to mediocre centration (of the lens elements) only. BTW: Of the lenses with f1.4 maximum aperture, Canon and Leica are the best, however, at f2.8 the Contax 2.8/35 beats them all. Arnold ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Hi, I wonder how these tests are useful for us from the magazine. Nearly all 24mm lenses got less than 70 points out of 100. It seems that tele lenses get much higher notes than wide ones. Strange. SO maybe you are they are tested nearly full open. What do you think? And in this magazine Fa100/2.8 macro got very high mark - 86 Well done Pentax And in US magazine it was only 6/10.Also strange. Are there any huge optical differences between the same lenses or just diff conditions of tests? Alek Użytkownik Arnold Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> napisał: >In the February edition of German ColorFoto (CF) magazine the SMC >Pentax-FA 1:1.8 31mm Limited and the SMC Pentax-FA 1:2 35mm AL are >tested along with 35mm/f1.4 lenses from Canon, Leica R, Minolta and >Zeiss, 35mm/f2 lenses from Canon, Leica R, Minolta and Nikon, and a >Zeiss 35mm/f2.8. For the last two years, the CF lens tests have shown a >lot of consitency. Unfortunately CF usually tests lenses wide open and >two stops down, so it is hard to compare the MTF results of lenses of >different maximum aperture. However, this much can be said: > >Of the lenses with f=1.8 or 2 maximum aperture, Minolta and the two >Pentaxes offer the best image quality with 20 points (out of 30) for >sharpness/resolution and 28 points (out of 30) for contrast. Canon is >close (19 and 28 points) while Leica (18 and 27) and Nikkor (17 and 27) >are defeated. Looking at the MTF curves, the Minolta 35/f2 offers the >best performance wide open. However, at f=4 the MTF of the the Pentax >31/f1.8 is by far the best with unusually small fall-off from centre to >corner. Light fall-off (vignetting) is relatively well controlled in all >lenses (7 points out of 10) except for Leica (5/10). The Leica (6/10), >Canon (6/10) and Minolta (7/10) 35/f2s offer slightly less distortion >than Pentax (5/10 each) and Nikon (5/10). The Minolta offers excellent >centration (? Zentrierung in German) with 20 points out of 20, while >Leica (18), Nikon (17), Pentax 31/f1.8 (17), Pentax 35/f2 (16), and >Canon (15) offer good to mediocre centration (of the lens elements) only. > >BTW: Of the lenses with f1.4 maximum aperture, Canon and Leica are the >best, however, at f2.8 the Contax 2.8/35 beats them all. > >Arnold > ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczędzić na kosztach obsługi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
